[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Q.E.D. - MONTGOLFIERING, SPOOFS +
I recognize that the vast majority of list readers are
sensible human beings trying to better the profession they
love and serve the interests they represent. As such,
readers of this thread do not need me, or a claque of
snivelers, to determine the probity of the impartations being
made. You are capable of determining that for yourselves.
This posting is not meant to in any way denigrate your
important work or to challenge the efforts being made by the
vast majority of you to be objective, civil, fair and to
examine the facts and determine the truth to the best of your
abilities.
Accordingly, most of the commentary included in this posting
is directed toward the hallucinating thralldom of a dozen or
so self proclaimed cryptographic jackadandies who beneath
their public veneer are simply a flock of flaccid jackanapes.
As proof of that thesis, look at the transpirations of the
past few weeks.
Preamble:
In law school, potential attorneys are drilled in the three
prong postulate:
1. If you can argue the facts, argue the facts, the
evidence.
2. If you cannot argue the facts, then argue the law,
Shannon and Sneider.
3. If you cannot argue the facts, or the law, then attack
the opposition, the people presenting the facts.
Another statement parable is "if you do not like the message
attack the messenger."
This stratagem can be applied not only to the courtroom but
to any affray.
Evidence:
1. The cabal of pedants has looked at the IPG web site in
detail, as evinced by their frequent citing of materials
that were not theretofore set out in any of the postings
made to this list. Where did they get it? Obviously from
the web site.
2. They quickly discerned that they could not possibly argue
the facts as proved by the fact that not a single one of
them have deigned to do so. They quickly realized that
algorithm was unassailable from their extremely limited
low level of competence. Actually, it cannot be attacked from
any level of competence as close analysis of same will reveal.
I bet none of that eau de vie crowd has ever cracked real
ciphertext in their life. They live in a self hypnotic fantasy
mirage world. Obviously, they are incapable of breaking real
encryption systems. Oh, they have posited all kinds of
crackbrain scheme for breaking systems under some silly
hypothetical scenario - most of which have been forseen
and solved decades ago by people who are real professional
cryptographers.
I could pose a theory of broad jumping from New York to London
too. All I would have to do is to jump two feet high and be
traveling at a velocity of roughly 63,360,000 feet per second,
only about .067 c, and I COULD make it. Some of the
self presumed cryptographic jackadandies' hairbrain schemes
are even more obtuse than that.
3. Unable to attack the algorithm because of their gross
impotence, they started citing their law. They attacked my
position that the stream cipher was an OTP, citing
Shannon as proof that was not the case. In essence
invoking the oracular doctrine of Shannon infallibility.
They skim over Shannon, read Schneier and then get on their
pulpit and preach their version of the Gospel and to all of us
mere mortals because they are totally incapable of solving
real life applications of cryptography. They spout meaningless
turkey gobbleddegook instead of actually doing it. As noted
before,
their information = P log_base_infinity P,
and as is equally evident,
their disinformation = P log_base_0 P
I acknowledged the truly unique contribution that Shannon
has made to cryptography, communications and related
fields and the coessential redound on Schneier for the
codification of cryptography. However, my position is
that Shannon mathematically proved in absolutism only the
limitations that we must work within, not what can be
done within those delimiters.
Accordingly, I argued that the disputation was a matter
of semantics. I agreed that the algorithm did not have
infinite entropy but it was still an OTP because it
fulfilled the other basic tenants of an OTP in all
respects saving entropy. I further asserted that the
entropy question was immaterial because the entropy of
the algorithm was far greater than any possible practical
need, by tens of thousands of orders of magnitude. Such
rationale fell on parti pris deaf erudite ears.
4. As a result, I realized that from my vantage point such
an argument was counter productive at the very best. As a
result, I took the OTP issue off the table by agreeing,
as I had stated on numerous occasions, that the algorithm
produced noncommunicative stream ciphers, PRNG streams
that manifested remarkable random like properties, though
they certainly are not random.
5. Deprived of their dogmatic dictums with respect to IT,
those detractors, like all disconcerted confuters since
the dawn of human controversy, turned to the use of
sophomoric fustigation. They imagine themselves as
a clique of cryptographic superdupers; but in this
case they were overwhelmed by the strength of the algorithm,
which pricked their hyper-inflate egos. That in turn, led to
their futile efforts to try to strike back and cudgel the
source of their foil as they vented their acute frustrations.
In this case, since many of them are obviously very
bright and articulate, their resultant falderal is very
adroit and humorous. Even though being the butt of their
lampoonery, I nonetheless was highly amused, got some
good laughs, found it entertaining and was flattered by
the expended efforts of the author(s).
Although I recognize that it was not intended to be so, I
found it to be exemplary raillery. Levity can help all of
us to keep serious matters in perspective and I applaud
the authors for their jocose entertainment. Keep it up,
not only is it fun, it also helps everyone to see through
the smoke screens in order to discern the real underlying
truths.
6. Note that during the whole discourse and postings made to
this thread, not a single individual has critiqued
the algorithm itself. Not many of them will even own up to
having looked at the algorithm, much less having
attempted to analyze it and assess its strengths or
weaknesses. Get real. How many readers really believe
that all of those fast cryptographic guns would ignore the
real, very simple, algorithm in unison if they stood a ghost
of a chance of cracking it? Any talk of a mediocre pecunary
reward for breaking the algorithm is giddy poppycock and
everyone knows it. They would much rather have the
satisfaction and pride that they were the one that gigged me,
the only rub being that that is patently impossible .
Each individual in that elitist cabal obviously salivates
at the opportunity to crack the algorithm and throw it
back in my face since my postings have raised seemingly
heretic controversy. It should be clear to all readers of
this thread, that with a possible exception or two, those
detractors have looked at the algorithm and realize it
far exceeds their meager cryptanalytic abilities.
Accordingly, it is transpicuous that they have resorted to
trying to use their turkey flapdoodle to cloud the issue since
they have nothing of substance to reason upon. They could not
crack their way out of a wet Kleenex with an unlimited
number of gigaton thermo nuclear weapons.
Perry Metzger and others have even used inculcative
factoids to try to claim that the algorithm had been
broken. What they were referring to of course was the
algorithm that was posted a few months ago.
As several then cypherpunks know, that first algorithm
was posted to try to get some of the list sharpshooters
committed. I believed that those intellectual cowards
would leap at the opportunity to display their prowess if
confronted by weakness; while on the other hand, that same
small flock of turkeys would inevitably run for cover,
flapping their wings, and spluttering out puny excuses
and their turkey gobbledygook if confronted by strength,
just as they are now doing.
I wanted to show up gross hypocrisy for what it is,
pure spineless cowardice by that gashouse, in more ways
than one, gang. As a result, I posted that first
algorithm with the intention to answer back with the real
algorithm fairly quickly.
However, a few cypherpunk confidants recommended that IPG
provide the capability for the users to generate all
their own keys in order to erase that stigma against the
algorithm. In addition, some of them also urged me to
prove some of the statistical contentions that I was
making instead of just stating them. Accordingly, I
decided to do those two things and to reconstruct the web
site accordingly.
Further, one very helpful cypherpunk gave me a number of
references which required me to go to the University of
Texas in Austin in order to research them. In doing that,
and as result of that research and testing, I changed the
algorithm slightly; most importantly, from using a linear
congruential generator as the method of providing the
algorithm seed, to a nonlinear congruential generator
method.. That is, I added two lines to the seed generator
engine, to wit:
DO (ADDED)
JV = JV+1
IF JV = 53 THEN JV = 0
A[JV]=( A[JV] + B[JV] ) MOD C[JV]
WHILE ( A[JV] AND 16384 ) = 1 (ADDED)
or in effect
(WHILE A[JV] > 16383 )
Copyright 1996 by Donald R. Wood. All rights reserved.
NOTE: The 53 is a variable.
All this took time, and before we could completely
regroup, 5 months had passed into history.
That does not negate what I was trying to establish
though. That is, that the alleged highly puissant
sharp shooters are in reality just a bunch of impuissant
intellectual cowards feeding everyobne cryptographic pablum.
They leap like wilding pit bulldogs at perceived weakness and
like all fraudlent impostors completely, and very
conveniently, languish from rational reality when they face
strength. They fancy themselves as a school of great white
sharks plying the waters of cryptography but in reality, they
are merely little batty harmless blowfish pumping themselves,
and each other, up with "write bites" of pompous flattery,
self and group veneration, and other fawning, obsequious
giddiness.
Having set out my view of the derogators, the remainder of
this posting, excepting the one obvious paragraph, is intended
for all readers. I trust that most readers will not be diverted,
or dissuaded, by the myopic view of traducers. Computer software,
is becoming infecte with obsessive compulsive technical interests
that are attempting to lead us down the primrose path to
intricacy and complexity that will eventually result in much
lower productivity and fewer users.
Microsoft Office is a perfect paradigm of such sophistry
being used to deceive - it does not increase productivity at
all, au contraire, in the words of Scott McNealy it serves as
a serious impediment to real productivity - what does 23
fonts, 45 colors and all kinds of other unnecessary
paraphernalia add to content, understanding and ultimately
productivity. Misplaced appeal to aesthetics has all but
supplanted the much more important goal of making us, and the
interests we serve, more efficient and more productive.
Such a course, if not corrected, will eventually lead to,
among other things, our World Wide Web becoming a Gordian
tangle in terms of usage by the vast majority of technically
impaired users. I am not alone in raising this issue of
everything becoming too complex and too complicated for
potential users. My very weak voice is merely being added to
the far more weighty enunciations of McNealy, Ellison,
Andreessen, Jobs, and other industry illuminaries.
Nowhere, is that usage gap between the technophiles and the
technophobes more pronounced than it is in the use
of encryption. If we do not keep it simple and easy to use,
we will impose defacto standards that only the technically
exceptional, such as readers of this, will be able to use.
That is an important part of what the IPG EUREKA algorithm
and system is about: Making it simple and easy for neophytes
to use, and work with.
Certainly EUREKA is not a panacea for all encryption needs.
For example, it is obviously NOT the best solution for
the problems relating to conducting commerce over the
Internet. Further, without question, RSA, PGP, ENTRUST, and
other encryption systems fill very important exigencies.
Where EUREKA shines is in three important strategic user
applications:
1. To set up a permanent line of Internet/intranet
communication privacy between two, or a group of,
individuals. As a result, pass phrases, session
encryption keys, and other work impediments of that
genre can be eliminated.
While applicable to everyone, this is especially true
of newbies, computer novices, technophobes, and other
non-techies. It is easy to make it transparent to
clerks, secretaries, attorneys, accountants, brokers,
insurance agents, administrators, law enforcement
personnel, and others to whom the computer is merely a
necessary implement used to perform their job.
EUREKA is much faster, more secure, easier to use, and
more flexible than other systems for this application.
As such, it is ideal for business intranets, or mixed
Internet - intranet systems.
It is also ideal for private use by two individuals or
a small group of friends and family.
2. To protect your private hard disk files, programs or
data, from compromise by hackers and interlopers. In
this application it is unsurpassed because differential
analysis, and other attacks that can be made to
evolving files is rendered impossible and it is
extremely fast. It is simply the best product available
for this application, though it has some limitations in
terms of partial file access and reencryption that will be
relieved in the months ahead.
3. For the mass distribution of proprietary content over
the Internet. Using authentication codes, similar to
military codes of the day, a manufacturer can easily
encrypt and transmit software products of all types to
an unlimited number of users.
Where do we go from here? As you read this, many companies
and individuals have purchased, are purchasing, copies for
test and evaluation under the newly announced limited
moneyback guarantee offer set out in our web site at:
netprivacy.com
As set out, we are temporarily offering PC compatible
systems:
1. For encrypting and protecting your hard disk
files from hackers and interlopers for $19.50
2. The same as 1 plus encryption of e-mail and other
files for transmission on Internet for $29.50
3. A six pack, six of the number 2 package above for
trial use by corporate intranet users for $99.50
All prices include S&H but NOT state taxes where
applicable. Our unconditional money back guarantee also
includes guaranteed free updates, currently being
developed by independent software developers, through
December 31, 1997.
I realize that there are many Sancho Panza minds out there,
who mistakenly think they speak for all list members, and will
then go and say that no one will bother with the product.
They have already been proved wrong. They are not by any
means Rozinantes, they are mere inferior Rozins, Playtyrs at
best, Kyrie Eleison kryson.
In addition, Coderpunks, Cypherpunks, and other Internet
users have committed themselves to helping IPG to improve
the EUREKA system, to make it even easier to use, to
significantly increase the performance ( by at least an
order of decimal magnitude), to develop it on other
platforms, and the other things that must be done if it is
to achieve its potential. Some of these product revisions
and enhancements should be available late this year and
others next year. Stay tuned for the results of these
efforts.
Such efforts are in response to our offer set out at:
netprivacy.com/mlmplan.html
Therein, as you may know, we explain how we intend to
develop and market the IPG products using Internet. As
described, instead of establishing an inhouse organization
to do those things, as well as system testing & evaluation
and system engineering, we plan to use independent
developers and agents over Internet. That way, effort will
be rewarded on a competitive merit basis. We believe this
will be the wave of the future.. Exceptional talent,
working out of their own homes, located in the place of
their choice. These people will be creating product that
will be marketed by other creative people working from
their place of choice.
Find out how you can participate at.
netprivacy.com/mlmplan.html
IPG will NOT COMPETE with its software developers or its
marketing agents. If you can build a better mousetrap, or
invigorate the marketing effort, you will be rewarded
commensurably. Even if it is not a better mousetrap, you
will still receive pecuniary participation for your
efforts. There is a huge upside potential with very
little downside risk, except for your time. Others have
got in on the ground floor of opportunities like this,
here is your chance. This offer is of course currently
limited to U.S. and Canadian citizens.
The software development kit has been reduced down from
$395.00 to $39.50 on a limited offer basis.
We anticipate that we will withdraw these limited offers
on December 31, 1996.
See for yourself. Prove it to yourself. Also, remember, the
algorithm is available at:
http://netprivacy.com/algo.html
We would be very proud to work with you in a synergistic
effort to improve ourselves and to produce products for the
cryptographicand other markets. Contact us oprivately if you are
interested,
With kindest regards,
Don Wood,
> ===================================================================
>
> Donald R. Wood
> [email protected]
>
> ===================================================================
>
> Some people are more certain of their own opinions than they are of
> facts presented by those they disagree with - Aristotle
>
> --------------------- Quod Erat Demonstrandum ---------------------
linear
congruential generator as the method of providing the
algorithm seed, to a nonlinear congruential generator
method. That is, I added two lines to the seed generator
engine, to wit:
DO (ADDED)
JV = JV+1
IF JV = 53 THEN JV = 0
A[JV]=( A[JV] + B[JV] ) MOD C[JV]
WHILE ( A[JV] AND 16384 ) = 1 (ADDED)
or in effect
(WHILE A[JV] > 16383 )
Copyright 1996 by Donald R. Wood. All rights reserved.
NOTE: The 53 is a variable.
Running statistical tests on the encryptor stream with
the two lines included versus excluding the two lines,
revealed that using them was much stronger from every
vantage point. There is sound mathematical reasons why
that is true, which succinctly as possible is because it
generates a more even distribution of the seed values,
( 0,..,16383 ), with the addition of the two lines. I had
experimented with the modified form before I posted the
first algorithm but had tentatively rejected it
because it decreased overall performance and did not seem
to be necessary - I simply did not recognize its
importance at that time.
However, subsequent testing caused me to change my mind
because the standard deviations, Chi Squares, 1st
differences and each and every one of the other
statistical tests proved that the addition of the two
lines produced more random like resultants. In addition
the revised algorithm, with the two added lines, makes it
impossible to block the algorithm output stream in the
absence of the specific As, Bs and Cs used.
All this took time, and before we could completely
regroup, 5 months had passed into history.
That does not negate what I was trying to establish
though. That is, that the alleged highly puissant
sharp shooters are in reality just a bunch of impuissant
intellectual cowards. They leap like wilding pit
bulldogs at perceived weakness and like all impostors
completely, and very conveniently, languish from rational
reality when they face strength. They fancy themselves as
a school of great white sharks plying the waters of
cryptography but in reality, they are merely little batty
harmless blowfish pumping themselves, and each other, up
with "write bites" of pompous flattery, self and group
veneration, and other fawning, obsequious giddiness.
Having set out my view of the derogators, the rainder of this
posting, is intended for all readers. I trust that such
readers will not be diverted, or dissuaded, by the myopic
view of traducers. Computer software, is becoming infected
with obsessive interests that are attempting to lead us down
the primrose path to intricacy and complexity that will
eventually result in much lower productivity and fewer users.
Microsoft Office is a perfect paradigm of such sophistry
being used to deceive - it does not increase productivity at
all, au contraire, in the words of Scott McNealy it serves as
a serious impediment to real productivity - what does 23
fonts, 45 colors and all kinds of other unnecessary
paraphernalia add to content, understanding and ultimately
productivity. Misplaced appeal to aesthetics has all but
supplanted the much more important goal of making us, and the
interests we serve, more efficient and more productive.
Such a course, if not corrected, will eventually lead to,
among other things, our World Wide Web becoming a Gordian
tangle in terms of usage by the vast majority of technically
impaired users. I am not alone in raising this issue of
everything becoming too complex and too complicated for
potential users. My very weak voice is merely being added to
the far more weighty enunciations of McNealy, Ellison,
Andreessen, Jobs, and other illuminaries of our industry.
Nowhere, is that usage gap between the technophiles and the
technophobes more pronounced than it is in the use
of encryption. If we do not keep it simple and easy to use,
we will impose defacto standards that only the technically
exceptional, such as readers of this, will be able to use.
That is an important part of what the IPG EUREKA algorithm
and system is about: Making it simple and easy for neophytes
to use, and work with.
Certainly EUREKA is not a panacea for all encryption needs.
For example, it is obviously NOT the best solution for
the problems relating to conducting commerce over the
Internet. Further, without question, RSA, PGP, ENTRUST, and
other encryption systems fill very important exigencies.
Where EUREKA shines is in three important strategic user
applications:
1. To set up a permanent line of Internet/intranet
communication privacy between two, or a group of,
individuals. As a result, pass phrases, session
encryption keys, and other work impediments of that
genre can be eliminated.
While applicable to everyone, this is especially true
of newbies, computer novices, technophobes, and other
non-techies. It is easy to make it transparent to
clerks, secretaries, attorneys, accountants, brokers,
insurance agents, administrators, law enforcement
personnel, and others to whom the computer is merely a
necessary implement used to perform their job.
EUREKA is much faster, more secure, easier to use, and
more flexible than other systems for this application.
As such, it is ideal for business intranets, or mixed
Internet - intranet systems.
It is also ideal for private use by two individuals or
a small group of friends and family.
2. To protect your private hard disk files, programs or
data, from compromise by hackers and interlopers. In
this application it is unsurpassed because differential
analysis, and other attacks that can be made to
evolving files is rendered impossible and it is
extremely fast. It is simply the best product available
for this application.
3. For the mass distribution of proprietary content over
the Internet. Using authentication codes, similar to
military codes of the day, a manufacturer can easily
encrypt and transmit software products of all types to
an unlimited number of users.
Where do we go from here? As you read this, many companies
and individuals have purchased, are purchasing, copies for
test and evaluation under the newly announced limited
moneyback guarantee offer set out in our web site at:
netprivacy.com
As set out, we are temporarily offering PC compatible
systems:
1. For encrypting and protecting your hard disk
files from hackers and interlopers for $19.50
2. The same as 1 plus encryption of e-mail and other
files for transmission on Internet for $29.50
3. A six pack, six of the number 2 package above for
trial use by corporate intranet users for $99.50
rant
way than _any_ government has ever in history behaved